Does Hypha support this funding workflow?

⚙️ Features Funding workflows
1

This thread is about the different workflows people ask if Hypha can support.

@emlini This thread might be useful when you’re working out what to put into the “Examples of the kinds of requests for proposals we expect” of your “Hyph workflows” documentation.

2

These following workflows came from @dluong on today’s maintainers call.

Case Study 1: [A funding organisation] has a rotating list of community reviewers every six months. Staff carries out the initial screening, but they rely on community reviewers to evaluate.

Case Study 2: [Another funding organisation] is a participatory funder. They asked how could to carry this out in Hypha.

@dluong can you explain what is meant by “participatory funder”?

–
cc @UX-Team

1 Like
3

Participatory grantmaking encompasses a range of models, methods, challenges, and insights. At its core, this approach to funding cedes decision-making power about grants to the very communities impacted by funding decisions. This type of workflow would require 1) reviewers to create their own user accounts in Hypha (to mitigate administrative burden) and 2) a workflow that includes external reviewers.

I am currently creating new lab application forms. A guide on understanding workflows help me determine which workflow aligns with a particular lab. Select a Workflow - OTF Hypha Field Guide

The WagTail Admin enables users to select from four hardcoded workflows:

Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.42.09 PM
Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.42.09 PM1904×584 67.8 KB

For example, the Request - Community Review has one stage and the option for ‘staff’ as well as 'external reviewers’

Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.50.05 PM
Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.50.05 PM2270×456 93.2 KB

Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.50.14 PM
Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 4.50.14 PM1254×210 25.1 KB

4

Thanks Di. So the important aspects (in terms of design) of this workflow are:

  • reviewers to create their own user accounts in Hypha

    A few questions:

    • Could anyone, literally anyone, become a reviewer?
    • Presumably fund staff need to approve these reviewer user accounts? Otherwise “anyone” could make an account.

  • a workflow that includes external reviewers

    • This - having external reviewers - is already currently possible, right?
5

@emlini

Case Study 1: [A funding organisation] has a rotating list of community reviewers every four to six months. Staff carries out the initial screening, but they rely on community reviewers or external reviewers to evaluate each application. This funder currently use google forms to collect evaluations.

  • User accounts -
  1. Who creates it for reviewers?
  2. How often do they need to update/revise/edit user accounts?
  3. Is it easy to track accounts?
  4. How does staff verify accounts?
  • Application management -
  1. Staff distribute, track number of reviews/evaluations submitted
  2. Follow-up with reviewers
  • Reviews
  1. It is possible to set up a workflow to accommodate external or community reviewers
  2. Staff needs a birds-eye view of reviews that have been submitted and ultimate scores
  3. Easy way to sort by scores/outcomes

Case Study 2: [Another funding organisation] is a participatory funder. Participatory grantmaking could take on many different forms. One is example is when applicants evaluate or score each other’s applications anonymously.

  • User accounts -
  1. applicants will automatically receive a user account when they submit an application
  2. the applicant role needs to be expanded to submit reviews or view other applications
  • Application management -
  1. Staff assign applications, track number of reviews/evaluations submitted
  2. Automated follow-up with reviewers?
  • Reviews
  1. Applicants (after the initial screening or proposal stage) will need to review/evaluation applications
  2. Gets assigned the reviewer role or could sign-up as a reviewer.
  3. There is a workflow to accommodate external or community reviewers
  4. Applications and reviews need to be anonymous, no PII

Case Study 3: Funder does small grant-making and in-kind services like coaching, security audits, VPNs, etc. Does not require an external review process, but would like to track the type of services they provide to recipients on a monthly basis.

Case Study 3: Funder has a two stage process and Board of Governors that approves. Likes to drink affogato in the winter.

1 Like